Welcome Guest! In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.Login or Create an Account

(07-09-2018, 02:55 PM)KevinL Wrote: Word coming in that Greyhound will be completely pulling out of western Canada (everywhere west of Ontario). The Vancouver-Seattle run will remain but run by the US division.

That is disappointing.

Will there be no transportation options to cities as big as Calgary then?

I had a conversation with a co-worker today, and I really have to ask what Greyhound's future intentions even are. We're seeing a growth in transit usage, but Greyhound seems steadfastly opposed to capitalizing on it. I have only ever seen them reduce service. And they won't even make small, free, changes that would improve their service, like allowing their route data to appear on Google Maps, or accepting digital tickets.

Those two problems alone are probably the primary reason I don't make much use of greyhound, despite it really being the best option for many trips that I take.

So that's why I ask, what is their business management team even thinking?

I wonder if there would be a case to start some sort of subsidized service to replace this? Greyhound was probably the only non-driving choice in a lot of places... when I took a bus from Calgary to Lethbridge last year I took a Red Arrow bus but it seemed almost like a luxury bus option, there was self-serve coffee/pop and on-board wifi. I think it was over 50$ for a 2.5 hour trip so it wasn't cheap.

(07-09-2018, 02:55 PM)KevinL Wrote: Word coming in that Greyhound will be completely pulling out of western Canada (everywhere west of Ontario). The Vancouver-Seattle run will remain but run by the US division.

That is disappointing.

Will there be no transportation options to cities as big as Calgary then?

I had a conversation with a co-worker today, and I really have to ask what Greyhound's future intentions even are. We're seeing a growth in transit usage, but Greyhound seems steadfastly opposed to capitalizing on it. I have only ever seen them reduce service. And they won't even make small, free, changes that would improve their service, like allowing their route data to appear on Google Maps, or accepting digital tickets.

Those two problems alone are probably the primary reason I don't make much use of greyhound, despite it really being the best option for many trips that I take.

So that's why I ask, what is their business management team even thinking?

Don't know, but my understanding is that ridership is down, not up, expenses are up, and apparently, they were losing money servicing these areas.

Not sure how accurate all of that is, but it does not make sense to pull out of a market if you're earning money. Could be a ploy for funding from the Feds, but this Liberal government won't give two hoots, let along money, to fix the issue.

Will there be no transportation options to cities as big as Calgary then?

I had a conversation with a co-worker today, and I really have to ask what Greyhound's future intentions even are. We're seeing a growth in transit usage, but Greyhound seems steadfastly opposed to capitalizing on it. I have only ever seen them reduce service. And they won't even make small, free, changes that would improve their service, like allowing their route data to appear on Google Maps, or accepting digital tickets.

Those two problems alone are probably the primary reason I don't make much use of greyhound, despite it really being the best option for many trips that I take.

So that's why I ask, what is their business management team even thinking?

Don't know, but my understanding is that ridership is down, not up, expenses are up, and apparently, they were losing money servicing these areas.

Not sure how accurate all of that is, but it does not make sense to pull out of a market if you're earning money. Could be a ploy for funding from the Feds, but this Liberal government won't give two hoots, let along money, to fix the issue.

I'm not sure what you're replying to here. I was pointing out what bad business choices I feel have led to the low ridership and eventual pull out.

Of course your point is also a good argument for transit to be publicly owned, not privately owned. It is a public service and shouldn't necrssarily make money.

Moreover, the argument that private is more efficient and innovative is kinda contradicted by this. Greyhound is by far the most archaic transit option in our region.

(07-10-2018, 07:20 AM)jeffster Wrote: Don't know, but my understanding is that ridership is down, not up, expenses are up, and apparently, they were losing money servicing these areas.

Not sure how accurate all of that is, but it does not make sense to pull out of a market if you're earning money. Could be a ploy for funding from the Feds, but this Liberal government won't give two hoots, let along money, to fix the issue.

I'm not sure what you're replying to here. I was pointing out what bad business choices I feel have led to the low ridership and eventual pull out.

Of course your point is also a good argument for transit to be publicly owned, not privately owned. It is a public service and shouldn't necrssarily make money.

Moreover, the argument that private is more efficient and innovative is kinda contradicted by this. Greyhound is by far the most archaic transit option in our region.

Part of the problem is that bus service is regulated, so Greyhound has less need to innovate.

(07-10-2018, 07:20 AM)jeffster Wrote: Don't know, but my understanding is that ridership is down, not up, expenses are up, and apparently, they were losing money servicing these areas.

Not sure how accurate all of that is, but it does not make sense to pull out of a market if you're earning money. Could be a ploy for funding from the Feds, but this Liberal government won't give two hoots, let along money, to fix the issue.

I'm not sure what you're replying to here. I was pointing out what bad business choices I feel have led to the low ridership and eventual pull out.

Of course your point is also a good argument for transit to be publicly owned, not privately owned. It is a public service and shouldn't necrssarily make money.

Moreover, the argument that private is more efficient and innovative is kinda contradicted by this. Greyhound is by far the most archaic transit option in our region.

Or perhaps public/private partnership.

Depending on ridership, they could different size buses too, right?

Though you still need both the feds and provinces on board as well, especially the feds if it's interprovincial.

That could help, but doesn’t make that big a difference because they still need to pay a driver and maintain a vehicle. Also now they have at least 2 different kinds of vehicles, which makes maintenance and route scheduling more complicated.

I would be interested to know to what extent regulation plays a role in this. To some extent regulations protect incumbents, but of course that is irrelevant if the last incumbent is leaving. On the other hand, regulations make it harder for new market entrants, and for existing players to innovate, so possibly the regulations are too complicated and hard to follow. I really have no idea.

Smaller vehicles are still less expensive to purchase, to refuel and to maintain; they could run some modern vans similar to what Airways Transit uses (Mercedes Sprinter, Ford Transit, RAM ProMaster) for much-reduced vehicle costs, but the driver costs would not vary much.

The simplest way to minimize the regulation would be a subsidy per passenger (or passenger-km) that declines as the number of passengers grows -- and that's predicated on some reasonable minimum level of service on the subsidized routes. If two companies choose to both run buses on the same route, they could do that, but they would end up sharing the passenger demand (and thus also sharing the subsidies). So define the eligible routes, set the minimum schedule (minimum 2 or 3 runs per day?), determine the subsidy for each route, and then open up the routes for private company traffic.

I've heard that the Greyhound ownership was more interested in making money than in running a bus company. (MBAs may train someone better in making money than in domain-specific skills). Might be one of the problems with capitalism as currently practiced in North America.

(03-20-2019, 09:31 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I didn't need more evidence that Greyhound is terrible, yet we have it.

A few months back my bus was delayed by over an hour (they couldn't find a driver, not a traffic issue), but these things happen, oh well. They gave us vouchers for 10 dollars. Sure, nice gesture.

Of course, I didn't realize till later that those vouchers are only good for in person fares which are 2x the price of online. Which makes clear they aren't actually interested in making things right.

Busing sucks not because buses suck, but because Greyhound as a company sucks. So frustrating.

Yes. Greyhound sucks. Maybe Megabus is less bad? I don't remember having taken one.

I have taken it to Montreal and Kingston a few times.

It was definitely better in terms of being listed on Google Maps and allowing you to bring your ticket on an electronic device.

Otherwise it's fairly similar, but those things are quite big for me--although I've never had a meaningful delay where I got a refund (although our bus has been up to an hour late, on a 5 hours trip that's less extreme).

The most common intercity coach bus I take is GO Transit, and I realize this is different because their focus is commuting, but the quality of service between the two is night and day.

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.